Gun Control

[Guest]

@"pumpf" said:

@"Vikeshrink" said:

@"pumpf" said:
To answer your question: because the goal (for liberals) is not to save lives.  It is to control them.

false.

Really?  Do tell.

It is OBVIOUS that stricter gun control doesn't work.  But that's all the Left has.  YOU tell me why they don't have OTHER solutions- ones that might actually work in the real world (where criminals are not deterred by a "no guns allowed" signs).

Look at what so much of the Left supports: BLM... which has led to MORE people being killed as they drive the police away; abortion... nothing more needs to be said; communism / socialism... see your un-revised history books of the 20th century; gov't health care... which has, indeed, led to "death panels" (the gov't decides who "deserves" to get treatment and who doesn't; and, in other, more liberal countries, forced euthanasia).  So... liberals really want to preserve and protect life, eh?  I'd love to hear some examples of how they've actually accomplished it (not just what their "intentions" are).

Although you and I disagree sharply on a number
of issues I’ve always found you to be a capable and skilled debater, which is
why it’s puzzling to me when you issue broad-brush generalizations such as
“…because the goal (for liberals) is not to save lives.  It is to control them.”
I'd like to call BS that you actually believe it (that liberals prefer to control lives vs saving them) but statements like this seem to be the only statements that I read or hear from my conservative-minded friends, family and fellow citizens.  
Why not, for a change of pace, try offering the benefit of the doubt to those with whom you disagree instead of simply dismissing them out of hand?

[Guest]

@"JimmyinSD" said:
I have an honest question on gun control. 

In light of recent events,  why does the left argument always go to more laws and not stricter enforcement of existing laws.  I mean the right side is/has/ and always will demand that the current laws be better enforced so why not do that for a few years and see where that gets us?  why not use the existing laws to full extent possible and then look to create new ones as the situation demands?  I think the new laws would be better accepted if existing laws were proven to be a failure. 

I heard that yesterdays gunman stabbed his neighbor earlier this year... that has to be a felony doesnt it?  first off how he isnt in jail is beyond me... maybe its a liberal california thing,  but I have to think stabbing somebody should warrant a felony jail sentence.  with that felony he can no longer own, posess, or use firearms... it was reported by several citizens in that are that the whack job has been shooting off thousands of rounds of ammo lately... so if he is a felon,  he isnt trying to hide his gun posession.   he shouldnt have been walking the streets let alone owning guns and shooting up innocents.

I would also say that if a person is to mentally unstable to stay in the military... they likely shouldnt own firearms either,  no way the fucker in Texas should have ever been able to own a damn gun.

Hey Jimmy,

I wish I would have seen this earlier but either way I appreciate the question...  

As a gun-owner and progressive-minded individual,
I’ll go on record to state that I’m not a fan of “more laws” for the sake of
more laws and I think when either side tries to frame the conversation as “more
v less” or “gun-control or not” we end up talking about the wrong things.  That said, here are just a few thoughts from your
friendly neighborhood progressive:   1.    
Stricter enforcement of existing laws.  Yup, sounds good to me.
2.     If it's not already, yes, stabbing someone with a knife should be a felony.


3.    
As for laws not being effective, my response to that is that it depends on the type and focus of the legislation.  For those who are both curious and brave, I posted below a couple of links to opinion pieces published in the New York Times (I know, a subversive leftist rag!) that I found worth reading.  


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...tings.html

http://https//www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

4.  From the perspective of a gun owner, it's essential that we start making a good-faith effort to participate in the conversation about increasing public safety around the issue of gun violence.  We have knowledge and expertise that is useful toward this goal.  I firmly believe that one of the reasons this issue has become so polarized is because instead of advocating for and supporting reasonable changes in gun safety legislation, the NRA and the gun-owning public have stonewalled the debate and increasingly come across as paranoid, selfish fanatics instead of the responsible concerned citizens that I know.  Despite increasing numbers of guns being sold in this country, the actual number of gun owners is decreasing.  Demographically speaking, that trend is going to continue until it reaches a tipping point after which any ability that we have to influence the debate will have long vanished.
5.  One final point.  The more I've thought about the multi-pronged problem of gun violence (mass-shootings, gang violence, increased suicide risk to name just a few) the more I've realized that for me it's a moral issue.  To accept the responsibility of gun ownership also means I accept the responsibility to advocate for their safe usage.  For me that responsibility extends beyond what I do in my personal life.  I also need to advocate for policies that increase public safety.

[Guest]

@"Vikeshrink" said:

@"pumpf" said:

@"Vikeshrink" said:

@"pumpf" said:
To answer your question: because the goal (for liberals) is not to save lives.  It is to control them.

false.

Really?  Do tell.

It is OBVIOUS that stricter gun control doesn't work.  But that's all the Left has.  YOU tell me why they don't have OTHER solutions- ones that might actually work in the real world (where criminals are not deterred by a "no guns allowed" signs).

Look at what so much of the Left supports: BLM... which has led to MORE people being killed as they drive the police away; abortion... nothing more needs to be said; communism / socialism... see your un-revised history books of the 20th century; gov't health care... which has, indeed, led to "death panels" (the gov't decides who "deserves" to get treatment and who doesn't; and, in other, more liberal countries, forced euthanasia).  So... liberals really want to preserve and protect life, eh?  I'd love to hear some examples of how they've actually accomplished it (not just what their "intentions" are).

Although you and I disagree sharply on a number
of issues I’ve always found you to be a capable and skilled debater, which is
why it’s puzzling to me when you issue broad-brush generalizations such as
“…because the goal (for liberals) is not to save lives.  It is to control them.”
I'd like to call BS that you actually believe it (that liberals prefer to control lives vs saving them) but statements like this seem to be the only statements that I read or hear from my conservative-minded friends, family and fellow citizens.  
Why not, for a change of pace, try offering the benefit of the doubt to those with whom you disagree instead of simply dismissing them out of hand?

Labeling allows you to marginalize individual, opposing viewpoints by painting all as one.

Reminds me of a lyric I just heard:

As we leave the front pages in bed
With the war raging on in our heads
I could write a swath of humanity off
'cause of something that I just read
But I don't want to fight fire with fire
And I don't want to preach to the choir
Giving just as much hell as I get
To people I'd prob'ly like if I met

So whether these days leave you laughing or crying
If you're doing your best to be kind
This land is as much yours as mine